Quote:
Originally Posted by Brin
Hi Jim,
As I said I've never seen these images before, and didn't know they had been published. Yet still when I look at the first image it does not seem quite right. I'll try and explain it as:-
As I understand it we see things as a 3D perspective, which can be viewed with a 'vanishing point'. The height of this point is a function of our positioning in relation to the object. This positioning of the viewer is fixed with our eyesight (by our position) as it is with a camera image (by the position of the cameraman), but unlike a painting as the artist can position the viewer. As such if a grid layout is applied from the viewer to the vanishing point, it gives structure to the image in the form of scale and perspective........ this being said, the image is clearly in focus in the foreground and slightly blurred in the far ground. The division between these two areas is the mounds of earth (from the grave).
So given that cameras in the time of WW2 were not computerised, and so operated on manual control, to set up the focal point to the earth took time, therefore suggesting that it was a premeditated and planned photo shot of an event. Yet for me the division between the foreground and the far area could also be a division from one layer to another, the far ground being applied as a separate image to the foreground.
On looking at the far-ground, those stood directly behind, to me appear to German army troops, mostly stood in a relaxed form of attention. But considering the German use of discipline they are not all dressed correctly, i.e. missing belts, talking to each other and the one most certainly in a German uniform has his hands relaxed to the front...? In contrast to the left far-ground the plump figure has his hand raised as if to prevent the sunshine from obscuring his vision whilst wearing a floppy hat..? Not quite German army issue.... The whole demeanour of the troops in the background appears relaxed, as if about to be told some good news in a semi-informal short notice muster.
In comparing the thick rough grass of the far-ground it is strange that it does not appear at all in the foreground, not even flattened at the side of the grave edge. The ground in the foreground seems devoid of such plant life, perhaps suggestive of being a different location to the far-ground, hence the layered divide.
The body language of the nearest shooter does not seem to be tense at all for someone who is about to shoot an unarmed individual, Outwith the 'red-mist' of rage it is not an easy thing to shoot someone, esp. up close and personal. Yet the expression on the face suggests this, but his body language does not match such stress symptoms. His grip on the victim also appears to gentle, not as if the victim is scared and so struggling.
If the uniforms of the shooters were SS, it would to me be better fitting, but then these uniforms would be harder to acquire compared to Wher. ones.
I may very well be proved incorrect regarding my thoughts on this photo, but to me it seems like a composed work, with an attached far-ground. The purpose, to empathise a depth of anti German propaganda.
|
I guess that I should have looked closely as those do look like German soldiers in the background. As for it being "staged", I'm not convinced. While I see your point, good photographers of the day were able to compose and get off a shot in short order. Using a light meter of some variety they knew the correct combinations of exposures (apertures and shutter speeds), and could pre-focus for distance (using what is known as "zone focus"). That's how photographers covered live sporting events no doubt. Exposure could also easily be corrected in the darkroom, either during film development or during printing.
Depth of field, that is the part of a photograph that appears to the human eye to be "in focus", is controlled by the aperture setting (f-stop) of the lens at the time that the film is exposed. The wider open the lens, the smaller the depth of field. Much like when we squint our eyes, we reduce the "aperture" through which light comes in and things are more in focus. Many nearsighted people can see much farther into the distance when the sun is directly in front of them, as the pupil is also much more constricted resulting in more light refraction. At night, when our pupils are dilated we see less well, not only because there is less light but because the depth of field is altered to some extent.
I mentioned "zone focus" and let me elaborate. If the photographer takes a 35mm lens (on a 35mm camera) and pre-focuses to 1.4m, then sets the apetrture to f/11, a "zone of acceptable focus" or "depth of field" exists between roughly 1.0 and 2.3 meters from the lens. Anything closer and anything farther will be unacceptably blurry.
While the camera may not have been a 35mm (though Leica and others made 35mm rangefinders before the war), a similar situation exists in larger format cameras as well. Given the brightness of the light, f/11 or f/16 would not surprise me as a necessary aperture because the fastest speeds available on lens shutters of the day was probably no greater than 1/100th of a second. Even using "slow" film, a narrow aperture was no doubt necessary.
So if the photographer is standing about 1.4 meters from the near subject using f/11 and a 35mm lens, nothing beyond 0.9m beyond the subject would appear in focus. That can easily explain the lack of focus in the background. Interestingly, if the same camera is focused at 2m, the depth of field is about 1.3-4.8m, much greater. I used 1m as it "seems" that the photo is taken with a wide angle lens common in field reportage and so it had to be a close distance to account for the size of the figures in the foreground. Notice also that the pile of dirt closest to the photographer, that on the lower left, is somewhat out of focus. That also suggests that the photographer was close enough to the subject that items very near it were too close for focus.
Now let's look at the light. In the main background it is coming from the right, a bit to the front, as all the shadows point to the left and slightly back. The soldier behind the men with the gun, the one wearing a hat, is shielding his eyes and his face is in bright light which also then appears to coming from the direction that he is facing, the right. His hand casts a shadow on his face indicating that as well.
The front shooter's right arm casts a shadow on his coat virtually directly behind it and to its right, going across his body as his arm does. Similarly, the arm of the shooter behind him casts a shadow consistent with light in the same direction. Could it be off a bit from the background? A bit yes. But if they made a print from two images they went to a lot of trouble to do it.
I believe that the sharp drop off in focus is due to the depth of field, and that the soldiers in the back are a bit beyond the pile of dirt. That's why you can see their feet, and that's why they are not in sharp focus. As to whether the photo was "contrived", only those involved know for certain. Wehrmacht soldiers were involved in executions of combatants. Remember the "Commisar Order" and the "Commando Order". Wehrmacht soldiers were at times involved in enforcing each. Why the soldiers were a bit lacking in dress code can be explained by any number of circumstances. What we see mostly are posed shots taken by official photographers. This may have been an amateur from the unit, which had just been roused from a night of R&R to witness the occasion. The "bored" body language could be related to this being the twentieth execution that they were forced to witness that month.
To illustrate depth of field a bit, look at the following photos:
Aperture_f2.8.jpg Aperture_f4.jpg Aperture_f8.jpg Aperture_f22.jpg
All of the above were taken with the same camera and lens but exposed with different apertures. As the aperture closes more of the subject comes into clearer focus.
Similarly, note the depth of field in these two photos taken with the same equipment. With the large aperture (second photo) the background is blurred. This technique is commonly used by photographers to emphasize the subject and to de-emphasize the background.
Jonquil_flowers_at_f32.jpg
Jonquil_flowers_at_f5.jpg
For more on depth of field, and for a calculator, see
Understanding Depth of Field in Photography.